Case: 18-11614 Document: 00515056948 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-11614 July 31, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Clerk Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOHN CORAWAY, Defendant–Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CV-819 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manetirony Clervrain, federal prisoner # 96396-004, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He filed a civil rights complaint against the Director of the South Central Regional Office of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), making general allegations that he was denied access to the courts, that the BOP and affiliated private prison facilities engaged in a practice of apartheid while employees participated in an ongoing criminal enterprise, and that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-11614 Document: 00515056948 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2019 No. 18-11614 unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to raise a claim upon which relief may be granted, based on Clervrain’s failure to allege facts showing that the named defendant or any other individual was liable for any harm he suffered. The court also ruled that Clervrain’s appeal was not taken in good faith in light of the reasons given in the order of dismissal. By moving to proceed IFP, Clervrain is challenging the district court’s good-faith certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. In his brief before this court, Clervrain continues to make vague allegations of harm, alleging that the district court had a duty to consider the merits of his claims before it could conclude that he had failed to state a claim for relief. A complaint will not proceed unless it “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court will “not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Clervrain has not shown that the district court erred in its denial of relief. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). A civil rights action is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the propriety of any ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals